Correct words of Patriarchs

[Arkady Shadursky]

I have created the thread about a month ago containing correct translations, but for some reason this thread disappeared and even mod team doesn't know where did it go...

I had consulted with the administration and was advised to simply restore the thread by creating new one. 

Thank you.
---
Arkady
 

[Arkady Shadursky]

If you don't know ancient Chinese, the Daoist treatises are not valuable to you by themselves, but only if the correct translation is provided. So we believe it is very useful to clarify some misleading concepts.

 

Here is the quote from the neighboring thread:

 

《修真十书悟真篇卷二十八》

袁公辅曰：千经万论，止载修丹事理，至于下手结交，火侯幽微，非遇师亲授，纵才过颜闵，则不可晓。平叔既序云：药物火候细微，无不悉备，好事者寻文辞义，岂须区区口授。今反此而言者，欲人之不敢轻议也。

 

袁(yuán)公(gōng)辅(fǔ) said: the myriad of the texts describe only the principles of refining the elixir, but as to starting the work and incepting it, and as to the subtleties of the fire phases – without getting those personally from a teacher – even if your talent surpasses   颜(yán) and 闵(mǐn), then these are hard to comprehend.

 

About that, 平(píng)叔(shū) (Zhang bo-duan) in his foreword says: the subtle fire phases of the medicine are fully knowable, those who work well at seeking the meaning of the text - why would they need a secretive personal transmission?

 

Now, contrary to the text, I urge people dare not to discuss it lightly.

 

The translation provided here by "Taoist Texts" is incorrect and misleading for those members who don't know Chinese.

 

So here are some corrections and clarifications.

 

1) The text in red "不可晓 hard to comprehend" actually means impossible to comprehend and can not be translated as "hard to comprehend".

 

Considering it is beginners level Chinese and previous discussions with "Taoist Texts" and awaken (see bottom of this message, "Impossible to do 不可能"), sadly it starts looking like the false translation is provided by "Taoist Texts" intentionally, to falsely support his position.

 

2) And in the case of correct translation here we see a contradiction: in one sentence it is said it would be impossible without a Teacher and in another - that you don't need a verbal transmission.

 

And Yuan Gongfu himself explicitly explains it in the last sentence of the commentary "Taoist Texts" has quoted but hasn't translated:

 

"There is a contradiction (reverse words): did not want people to lightly give preference to one (i.e. both parts are necessary - having a Teacher and studying texts)."

 

3) In addition to it. The second sentence is from the afterword and right before it Zhang Boduan says that before he wrote Wuzhenpian he has revealed some parts of the practice to the people who were not appropriate for teaching. Because of it he got a disease as a Heavenly punishment and decided never ever teach not appropriate people again. So obviously he haven't revealed the secrets of practice in his text.

 

If you have the translation of Wuzhenpian - we invite you to check it yourself, you only need to read short afterword.

 

I believe with this commentary the text becomes more clear to fellow members.

 

by A.A.Khokhlov

---

Best Regards

Arkady

Edited February 20, 2017 by Arkady Shadursky

[Arkady Shadursky]

 

 A Straight Talk On The Heavenly Saints’ Righteous Principles

by Wu Shouyang (aka Wu Chongxu)

 

天仙正理直论

伍冲虚子自序曰：

…

于此不可复用喻言之世，不得不显言直论，以开正门、辟正路，接引后圣，而易悟入，我之愿也！敢不勉焉而直论之哉？读此者了然解悟，后圣得《直论》而读者，必得顿然解悟。我以四十余年究竟之力而悟，后圣不终三日，彻见而彻知，并解悟二经之法旨，不大便益耶？则其超凡入圣，端在兹乎？古人有一字之师，有一句之师，曾谓此论注，已六万言矣，不可师教未来际圣真哉？即其解悟能由于此，修证亦必由于此矣！其因果必不昧。

 

时大明崇祯十二年己卯秋，邱真人门下第八派分符领节弟子冲虚伍守阳，序于南都灯市道隐斋中。

http://baike.baidu.com/view/4252452.htm

 

"In his author’s foreword, Wu says:

…

Thus, in this my book, I could not again use metaphors, had to speak straightly and clearly, to open the righteous gates, to break the righteous path, to lead the future sages, make the understanding easy – this is my sincerest desire!

 

Dare I strive not to speak straightly? The readers of my book will understand it, the future sages obtaining and reading this ‘Straight Talk’, will certainly obtain a sudden realization.

 

I was exhausting all my strength for more than 40 years to realize, yet the future sages, in less than 3 days, will see and understand all of it, and in addition will realize the dharma guidance of the Two Ways, is not it even better? Then they will transcend the mundane and enter the sainthood.

 

In the ancient times there were ‘one word teachers’, and ‘one sentence teachers’, to which were added commentaries up to 600 000 words, but without a teacher would those get you into the saintly realms?

 

On the other hand, those who understand this my book, will certainly obtain cultivation results! Thus, the karmic ties certainly will not remain unclear."

 

It shows us how important is to know the tradition, history and methodology of School which texts you are trying to translate. Otherwise numerous mistakes may appear:

 

1) Words of Wu Chongxu and his brother Wu Shouxu are mixed here into one heap, attributing both to one person - "author Wu" (see in red). And they of course are not even "twin brothers" as "Taoist Texts" guessed later:

 

伍沖虛還有一個堂弟，即是號為真陽子的伍守虛，在傳承上他是伍沖虛的師弟，他和伍守陽同注過《天仙正理》，他們兄弟二人的成就是聯繫在一起，世人提起伍柳派時，所謂的“伍”即是同時指沖虛、守虛二人

 

堂弟 - younger male patrilineal cousin.

 

2) Tianxian zhengli actually consists of two books, and in the phrase translated as 

"realize the dharma guidance of the Two Ways, is not it even better?"

Wu Shouxu actually says about understanding two books (of Tianxian zhengli), saying that it would be useful.

 

3) There is no "enter the sainthood" in the text. It is enter the wisdom (shenren = sage, wiseman - ideal of confucianism).

 

4) Chinese numbers are also wrong - there is 60 000 words, not "600 000 words"

 

5) The part of this translation "but without a teacher would those get you into the saintly realms?" has the following consequence:

either Wu Chongxu and Wu Shouxu didn't know what they were writing contradicting themselves or "Taoist Texts" didn't get their words in his translation.

 

I suspect the second is much much more true  

 

by A.A.Khokhlov

---

Best Regards

Arkady

[Taoist Texts]

I have created the thread about a month ago containing correct translations, but for some reason this thread disappeared and even mod team doesn't know where did it go...I had consulted with the administration and was advised to simply restore the thread by creating new one. 

 

Hmm, so the mods gave you a go-ahead to attack me by name 11  (eleven) times in this thread a second time around , instead of just providing your version of the translation. Were they dazzled by that huge chip on your shoulder?

A month! By Jove those true taoists  keep their grudges!

But then again the mods just let back in somebody who was banned like 2-3(?) times already. Times, they are a-changing, lol 

[Arkady Shadursky]

I actually thought a true researcher would only be thankful for pointing to his / her mistakes... 

 

Since the mistakes (probably even intentional as described above!) were published earlier I feel it important to correct this for all the fellow members. It is by no means a personal attack - it is founded and is not against a person - but against a mistranslation published. I believe such corrections are constructive, contributing, violate no forum rules, and in the end are just. 

 

When A.A.Khokhlov has created the original topic you came there not thanking for the corrections, not providing your arguments but yelling again and again "attacking me! attacking me!". The topic has become littered and was rightly moved to Hundun. I've asked mods what to do in such cases - they advised requesting splitting the topic. It is what I'm going to do if you are planning to do this again.

 

Thank you.

---

Best Regards,
Arkady

 

P.S. BTW, "Taoist Texts" you were named 6 times (+2 times by the forum engine) in my messages above and not "11 (eleven)" as you managed to "count".

Edited February 21, 2017 by Arkady Shadursky

[Taoist Texts]

Since the mistakes (probably even intentional as described above!)  

I do not understand. What is a 'intentional mistake'? Are you saying that i am lying? Are you attacking me again?

 

they advised requesting splitting the topic. It is what I'm going to do if you are planning to do this again.

 

 

In other words your plan is to attack me again and again until something gives. Good to know.)

[Taoist Texts]

I had consulted with the administration and was advised to simply restore the thread by creating new one. 

 

When A.A.Khokhlov has created the original topic 

 

Best Regards,

Arkady

 

Ah is that what is going on. You are posting on some other person's behalf.

Why? Are you guys working this forum in shifts? Is this a team effort? For what purpose?

Edited February 21, 2017 by Taoist Texts

[Marblehead]

I have created the thread about a month ago containing correct translations, but for some reason this thread disappeared and even mod team doesn't know where did it go...

 

I had consulted with the administration and was advised to simply restore the thread by creating new one. 

 

Thank you.

---

Arkady

 

 

Apparently someone used their Taoist supernatural powers to make it disappear.

[Marblehead]

I would like to remind all who are and will become involved in this thread that personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum.  Attack what was said, not who said it.

 

Please let us speak to the topic and not to the individual.

 

Translating from Chinese to English is a great challenge so there will always be different interpretations of the Chinese characters.

[Arkady Shadursky]

I would like to remind all who are and will become involved in this thread that personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum.  Attack what was said, not who said it.

 

Please let us speak to the topic and not to the individual.

 

I support this, thank you.

 

Translating from Chinese to English is a great challenge so there will always be different interpretations of the Chinese characters.

 

Agree. While some interpretations might be wrong, and some - even be made wrong intentionally.   

 

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

Edited February 21, 2017 by Arkady Shadursky

[Arkady Shadursky]

Walker has earlier posted an instructive post (http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/23165-daoist-zhang-gaocheng/page-2#entry736114) about this kind of tactic:

In Chinese slang there is a kind of tactic in discussion or debate called 玩太極, or "playing taiji," which is a reference to pushing hands. It means that when a person gets pinned down with a specific question that he or she can't or won't answer, the person then deflects the conversation elsewhere, to push the flow of discussion away from that which it would be inconvenient to face head on.

Accusing the questioner of being impolite or making the person receiving the question lose face is a very common trick in conversational 太極. This is generally a perfect escape hatch to use in Chinese culture, because it makes the questioner into the bad guy, and puts the onus on him or her not only to stop asking questions, but also to apologize and try to smooth things over, because in a "face" culture, it is actually often considered worse to point out another person's contradictions (even egregious ones), than it is to contradict oneself (even egregiously).

 

Instead of talking about the topic itself - we again and again see your cries that "evil Daoists are attacking my false translations"! It makes no sense.
---
Arkady

[Taoist Texts]

 

  sadly it starts looking like the false translation is provided by "Taoist Texts" intentionally, to falsely support his position. 

 

 

  sadly it starts looking like the false translation is provided by "Shadursky and Khokhlov Team" intentionally, to falsely support their position. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Taoist Texts

[Taoist Texts]

 

 

1) Words of Wu Chongxu and his brother Wu Shouxu are mixed here into one heap, attributing both to one person - "author Wu" (see in red). And they of course are not even "twin brothers" as "Taoist Texts" guessed later:

 

伍沖虛還有一個堂弟，即是號為真陽子的伍守虛，在傳承上他是伍沖虛的師弟，他和伍守陽同注過《天仙正理》，他們兄弟二人的成就是聯繫在一起，世人提起伍柳派時，所謂的“伍”即是同時指沖虛、守虛二人

 

堂弟 - younger male patrilineal cousin.

 

The problem with the OP is many. One of the most striking ones,  it is being unmitigated , ignorant nonsense. No need to understand Chinese to see that.

 

Here, they call  "Wu Chongxu and his brother Wu Shouxu ", the two Wu, brothers.

Three lines down they note that one of them is 堂弟 -a  younger male patrilineal cousin.

 

A question: can a brother be also a cousin to his other brother, unless they are Egyptian pharaoh princes?

[Arkady Shadursky]

Continuing this tactic (see post #11) wouldn't benefit you since it became obvious to everyone.

 

Here, they call  "Wu Chongxu and his brother Wu Shouxu ", the two Wu, brothers.

Three lines down they note that one of them is 堂弟 -a  younger male patrilineal cousin.

 

Words, words, words...

 

Students of the same School are called brothers (sisters in case of women) in Daoism. It would be nice to learn it before attempting to translate Daoist texts   

---

Regards,

Arkady

Edited February 21, 2017 by Arkady Shadursky

[Marblehead]

 

Agree. While some interpretations might be wrong, and some - even be made wrong intentionally.   

 

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

 

But Arkady, You simply do not know what you said to be a truth.  You have no way of viewing his mind in order to know if there was intent or if there was no intent.  You simply negated what he said in order to promote your opinion.

 

And who is to say who is wrong?  Someone who agrees with you?  That wouldn't work.  Someone who agrees with him?  That wouldn't work either.  Someone who had no opinion?  They would likely say that you both are wrong (or maybe right).

[Marblehead]

Okay.  You both are just totally fucking wrong.  How do you like that?

 

The next time I see Chuang Tzu I will ask him who is right.  I'll lay money that he says you both are right.

[Marblehead]

 

Students of the same School are called brothers (sisters in case of women) in Daoism. It would be nice to learn it before attempting to translate Daoist texts   

---

Regards,

Arkady

 

Yes, this is true.  Does it matter if they were brothers or cousins?

[dawei]

 

I actually thought a true researcher would only be thankful for pointing to his / her mistakes... 

 

Since the mistakes (probably even intentional as described above!) were published earlier I feel it important to correct this for all the fellow members. It is by no means a personal attack - it is founded and is not against a person - but against a mistranslation published. I believe such corrections are constructive, contributing, violate no forum rules, and in the end are just. 

 

When A.A.Khokhlov has created the original topic you came there not thanking for the corrections, not providing your arguments but yelling again and again "attacking me! attacking me!". The topic has become littered and was rightly moved to Hundun. I've asked mods what to do in such cases - they advised requesting splitting the topic. It is what I'm going to do if you are planning to do this again.

 

But you're just re-quoting posts that are part of a thread that was moved to Chaos and not really doing much different than trying to draw attention to another member instead of speaking your own words.

 

This thread may end up with the same outcome as it is being used as a vehicle as mentioned.

[Arkady Shadursky]

But Arkady, You simply do not know what you said to be a truth.  You have no way of viewing his mind in order to know if there was intent or if there was no intent.  You simply negated what he said in order to promote your opinion.

 

And who is to say who is wrong?  Someone who agrees with you?  That wouldn't work.  Someone who agrees with him?  That wouldn't work either.  Someone who had no opinion?  They would likely say that you both are wrong (or maybe right).

 

Here I can not agree with you. 

 

Firstly, there is a science - Chinese linguistics and for such simple case it is able to say definitely what is correct translation and what is wrong translation. Every translator would say you that 不可 means literally 不 - not 可 - possible. You can make your own judgement Please see this link https://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?page=worddict&wdrst=0&wdqb=不可

 

And examples from dictionary:

bù kě

（不可以） cannot; should not; must not; not allowed; forbidden:

不可一概而论 must not make sweeping generalizations

不可剥夺的权利 an inalienable right

不可抗拒的历史潮流 an irresistible historical trend

两者不可偏废。 Neither can be neglected.

我们不可这样匆促作出决定。 No (such) hasty decision should be made by us.

（“非...不可”表示“一定”） must:

这部电影太精彩了，我非看不可。 The film is extremely good, I just cannot miss it.

这个会太重要了，我非去不可。 The meeting is very important. I simply must go.

etc.

 

Secondly, about "intention". Please read message #2, point 1). There described the basis of the suspicion any fellow member may have (it being a simplest Chinese and reference to the previous discussion). It is your right to either agree with it or start discussion or disagree. But in case of discussion - please provide your arguments.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

[Arkady Shadursky]

Okay.  You both are just totally fucking wrong.  How do you like that?

 

The next time I see Chuang Tzu I will ask him who is right.  I'll lay money that he says you both are right.

 

How about laying money, asking not Zhuangzi, but simply some modern translator?   

It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about correctness of the translation.

 

Yes, this is true.  Does it matter if they were brothers or cousins?

 

They were brothers in School and cousins genealogically. Yes it matters for providing correct translation - to distinguish words of 2 different people. It was not done in initial translation by "Taoist Texts" - and here I've pointed it out.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

Edited February 21, 2017 by Arkady Shadursky

[Marblehead]

 

How about laying money, asking not Zhuangzi, but simply some modern translator?   

It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about correctness of the translation.

 

Okay, fine.  Discuss how you translated the word compared to how he translated the word.  And really, discussions are for the purpose of transmitting and understanding concepts, not specific individual words.

 

 

They were brothers in School and cousins genealogically. Yes it matters for providing correct translation - to distinguish words of 2 different people. It was not done in initial translation by "Taoist Texts" - and here I've pointed it out.

 

I accept that and have no further comment.

 

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

 

[Taoist Texts]

Yes, this is true.  Does it matter if they were brothers or cousins?

Oh in commercial cults words do not matter at all. Only the sales do. Desperately. Probably something to do with the exchange rate).

[Taoist Texts]

 

Walker has earlier posted an instructive post (http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/23165-daoist-zhang-gaocheng/page-2#entry736114) about this kind of tactic:

 

 

Instead of talking about the topic itself - we again and again see your cries that "evil Daoists are attacking my false translations"! 

 

Now you are just trolling.

[Arkady Shadursky]

But you're just re-quoting posts that are part of a thread that was moved to Chaos and not really doing much different than trying to draw attention to another member instead of speaking your own words.

 

This thread may end up with the same outcome as it is being used as a vehicle as mentioned.

Hello dawei,

 

I'd like to mention that I am not talking about a person. Please don't treat that as personal. I'm not saying that someone is bad, however I'm saying that the translation is bad. 

 

I'd like to discuss the translation in constructive manner with arguments and proofs on board.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

[dawei]

 

Hello dawei,

 

I'd like to mention that I am not talking about a person. Please don't treat that as personal. I'm not saying that someone is bad, however I'm saying that the translation is bad. 

 

I'd like to discuss the translation in constructive manner with arguments and proofs on board.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

 

 

Except the words used were 'incorrect', 'false' and 'intentional'...  that is hardly to be re-stated now as simply bad.

 

You're trying to claim the 'correct' translation without allowing there to be the chance your's is not correct either.

 

So it is not really an invitation to discuss on some level but to pointedly show where one person is the object of your thread.

 

You would not even have to mention anyone's name at all... but that doesn't seem to be a realization.    

 

The best course in such topics is to present a translation and offer your understanding and ask folks to discuss it.  If there is really no discussion to be made but "read my correct translation and understand XYZ is simply wrong", and the thread is in the wrong sub-forum as there is no entire text being discussed but tidbits from another thread where they already exist... such stuff feels like spam and bringing in other threads of what folks said is akin to trolling more.   

 

From what I can tell about the entire thread, it is just a desire to discredit another member by pulling from threads all over the forum.    That is not welcomed discussion.